A tweet by GameStop indicates the CEO of the games retailer got the chance to see Battlefield 4 behind closed doors, saying "Got to see Battlefield 4 today and all I can say is WOW! Thanks @EA for the sneak peek. Canít wait for you all to see it." This seems like a leak, since a next installment in the shooter series, however inevitable, is not yet announced, but VG247 notes that Electronic Arts is one of the many accounts that have retweeted this, suggesting they are comfortable with this revelation.

Kegaro wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 15:28:I for one have had just about enough "Modern Warfare", I'm ready for them to go back to WWII.

Actually, this is a good point. At this point, new versions of CoD or BF seem just like map packs, much of the gameplay and settings are the same. I'd really like to see them go back again to WWII with the graphics/tech they have today or to a future setting. Modern warfare is getting old and rehashy imo.

I'd like to see them go into the future, like they did with BF 2142. WW2 is really played out, although a Korean war version might be cool. Not sure there's enough there to justify a whole game though.

<Electric-Spock> wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 15:45:BF2 is def still the gold standard. It's sad to see the game dumbed down and the shitties netcode ever implemented. Unless they specifically state they have revamped the netcode, they can keep BF4 and any other versions they want to pump out.

Eye candy only goes so far....

Basically this. BF2 is the one I've put in the most time into, and I own them all. The latter ones have fun SP campaigns, but lack of mod support really hurts their longevity. BF2 with all the mods out for it is where the fun is to be had, esp AIX and Project Reality.

Kegaro wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 15:28:I for one have had just about enough "Modern Warfare", I'm ready for them to go back to WWII.

Actually, this is a good point. At this point, new versions of CoD or BF seem just like map packs, much of the gameplay and settings are the same. I'd really like to see them go back again to WWII with the graphics/tech they have today or to a future setting. Modern warfare is getting old and rehashy imo.

_________________________________________________"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard

Your bad grammar is quite ironic. Assuming you meant "hate on, Blues posters", you actually summed up all you seem to do here - hate on Bluesnews posters. I've been critical of people here in the past but that's all you seem to do.

Indeed. Amazed he's still around considering he's a one-trick pony always doing exactly what you described well.

InBlack wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 09:27:I stopped following BF after BF2. Battlefield is becoming more and more like the Call of Duty series. Would that be considered a true statement?

Yes and no.

Close quarters combat has inched towards a VERY low TTK (Time to Kill), especially on Hardcore. I haven't played CoD since... Modern Warfare I believe? Anyway, I know it has a ridiculously low TTK and Battlefield has that too. I think BF1942 nailed the TTK. It felt like you wouldn't always get caught and insta-killed, yet when you were the one attacking, you actually had a fight on your hands to secure the kill. I still enjoy insta-kills like Goldeneye on License to Kill. That was the only way I played Goldeneye! But for Battlefield, a game of that scale, a high time to kill just feels right. Lately, it seems games punish you for jogging an epic fuck mile just to die in 20ms.

So the close quarters combat is going towards CoD, but still recent Battlefield games retain the classic, intense vehicle focused combat. That's really what differentiates it (quite heavily) from CoD. In fact, the vehicles feel really good in BF3, and were nice in BFBC2. BC2 is always considered their most CoDish game, but the vehicles really weren't watered down much. In fact, I really enjoyed the vehicles in BFBC2, though there wasn't as much variety as most of the other games.

Besides those points, the most offensive move toward a "dumbed down" CoD style game is the map design. It no longer has that BIG conquest feel like that of Wake Island back in BF1942. Most maps are terribly linear or are to small to encourage a broader type of play. It feels like the battle is funneled, so more advanced tactics are impossible or are punished by the map design.

Also, the MCOM game mode (or whatever it's called) is even more offensive about funneling the players. It's the game mode where attackers must place a charge on an MCOM station, and once it's blown they move up to the next. The game mode can be fun, but it's far away from what I consider "Battlefield", that is: Conquest mode on a large scale, with vehicles.

Anyway, I hope they don't forget what made them successful in the first place. The last thing the world needs is yet another CoD.

No idea how far away BF4 actually is, but I'll probably give in and buy it unless they completely ruin it.

BF3 Caspian Ridge and Firestorm are two of my favorite maps all time, any game. 64 player conquest versions of course. Tank, AA, Jeep, on foot, pure awesomeness. I am a rather average pilot so I usually skip the jets/choppers.

I haven't played enough of the Armored Kill maps to have those two knocked out of the top two slots yet, but there are a few great AK maps also.

SXO wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 08:41:I am immune to the hype machine. As far as I'm concerned, a true successor to BF2/2142 has yet to be released. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed BF3, but it felt like a hybrid of the series that leaned more towards Bad Company 2.

Yeah I'd really like to see something along the lines of BF2142 but the success of BF3 + Grinder maps with the pointwhores average folk means that will likely just see another iteration like it.

That's pretty easy to solve though. Just get rid of the RPGization of Battlefield. If it were a game of pure skill and not skill + gear, point whoring would lose a lot of its appeal.

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 15:56:What discussion? It's a thread full of mostly hating for the sake of hating. A spade is still a spade.

I see less than a handful of negative posts in a 34 post thread, a few from easily ignored trolls. I think you need to revisit your definition of hate too, talking about things people want in the game is not hate. Acting like any form of negativity is somehow bereft of value in forum posting is also really dumb. I liked BF3 but it had many problems and they're worth discussing.

Quboid wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 14:03:Well, I'm glad that someone who makes a living selling games thinks an upcoming game is going to be good. This takes all the tension out of things like previews where you wonder if the author is getting paid - now we know he is! How convenient!

Your bad grammar is quite ironic. Assuming you meant "hate on, Blues posters", you actually summed up all you seem to do here - hate on Bluesnews posters. I've been critical of people here in the past but that's all you seem to do.

Eh it's not like he's wrong, you really don't see the majority constant stream of negative on say RPS that you do here.